Quantcast

Opinions on the beretta m1951

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Robk13, Jan 16, 2021.

  1. Robk13

    Robk13 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2019
    Messages:
    106
    Location:
    Odeasa, Texas
    Hello all, do any members here have any experience with the m1951 beretta? I am thinking of picking one up to add to the collection. In particular I am interested in weather the ones that were 1975-1976 production are strong enough for long term reliability since they switched back to the alloy frame in 1975. Does the "newer" alloy compare to steel framed examples?

    From what I gather the alloy is the same as used on the 92s. Were the later models less prone to locking block failure? Any information or stories regarding these pistols are appreciated.
     
  2. Redcoat3340

    Redcoat3340 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Western Washington/Seattle area
    By all means get it. Not for a carry gun, of course, or for one you are going to put 10,000 rounds through, but I got mine for it's history and link to the 92, and because I have some other Berettas (1935, M70, M85F, 92FX, 92s and I had a 96 but traded it to help purchase a Browning HP in .40).
    Clearly, for me at least, it's a range gun to shoot when the spirit moves me (usually "Beretta Day at the Range when I bring a few of 'em). And from my understanding there is no problem with alloy frames. (It's locking block wear that concerns folks.)
    One warning, however, DO NOT buy any of the Egyptian versions unless you really, really know your beans about them. Many were made of bad steel, a whole bunch were captured by the Israelis and they shot 'em with really hot submachine gun 9mm and beat 'em up bad, and there were two or three different versions and unless you can translate Arabic, it's tough to tell what is what. Get an Italian-made model and you should be good to go (after checking it out like you would any used pistol).
     
    Patocazador, Mosin Bubba and Monac like this.
  3. berettaprofessor

    berettaprofessor Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,801
    Location:
    Kansas
    Had one....sold it. Not the equal of a '92 and no reason to buy except the historic value.
     
  4. MAKster

    MAKster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,583
    The 1951 is a fine gun if you are a Beretta collector. The lineage of the design and how it becomes the 92 is interesting. But I wouldn't buy it if I was looking for an inexpensive surplus gun as a shooter. The 92S pistols are less expensive and are compatible with current 92 models.
     
  5. mgmorden

    mgmorden Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,054
    Location:
    Charleston, South Carolina
    I would (and did) get one as a curiosity piece to be shot occasionally. I collect guns and this one is an interesting example of the designs leading up to the Beretta 92 - and they were a military issue side-arm which brings its own interest. I also got a spare locking block for mine since they are known to be somewhat prone to cracking, though so far my original one has held up fine.

    Now, if you're looking for something to use as a "working" gun - it certainly will do that job but it's not optimal due to the dated design. Being single stack the capacity is limited, it's also single-action only with a less than ergonomic safety (so even if you're comfortable carrying cocked and locked it doesn't draw nearly as fast as a 1911 or the like), and the magazine release is in a rather awkward location.

    Basically, if this gun will be one of many guns you own, then for sure get one. If it will be one of few, then there are better choices.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice